Castrol (BP) is reluctant to provide PROOF

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Ed_Flecko

I got a response from Castrol about their claims, and I can't say that I'm surprised. I asked them, "Your website says "Independent testing has proven EDGE Extended Performance stronger than Mobil 1 Extended Performance against viscosity breakdown – the ultimate test of strength." and "Castrol EDGE Extended Performance 5W-30 was proven stronger against viscosity breakdown based on ASTM 6278 and CEC-L-14 independent testing." Can you provide me with these test results?" Their reply... "Thank you for contacting Castrol North America. The information requested is not available as it is proprietary."

There is one important thing to note, compared to some of the other "testing" we see. Now, Castrol states what test they are using in their comparison. You can go to the ASTM International site and purchase the methodology. If you have the equipment, you can run the test. If you don't, but do have some resources or know someone who does, you can rent, buy, or borrow the equipment. You can go to the store and buy any of these oils and conduct the tests and verify or disprove Castrol's claims. Now, I never said it was easy, or something you'd just finish off in an afternoon, but it can be done. And, you can be rest assured that Mobil (and everyone else) has conducted the same testing.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Originally Posted By: SatinSilver

They didn't bash Mobil, they said their product is the best in so many words. Leave it to Mobil to go after them if they stated a falsehood. You can always let Mobil know what Castrol said and see how they respond if you're so concerned over it. Let them fight their own fight.

All the big oil and filter companies already know all the advertising claims made by their competition. If they see something they can prove is a false claim by their competition, the lawyers will be let loose to correct the problem.

Exactly...by making the statement, and also stating the test methodology used, they know that they are covered legally, and it's a specific, and not false claim. The relative scarcity of such specific statements indicates that they are like gold nuggets when they find them in their testing, and they use them. The ones that I have problems with (well not really problems I guess) are the "25%, 70% less wear" claims, when teh claims are based on actually being under the allowable limits of Sequence IVA...EVERY oil on the market must have less wear than the test allows...but advertising it as 'less wear'...really.

 

[SR5]

Originally Posted By: Garak

Castrol states what test they are using in their comparison. You can go to the ASTM International site and purchase the methodology. You can ... conduct the tests and verify or disprove Castrol's claims. And, you can be rest assured that Mobil ... has conducted the same testing.

Exactly !!! You can safely bet good money that Mobil has reproduced these test to verify Castrol's claims. If the results and claims were found to be false, a large group of Mobil lawyers would be unleashed on Castrol and any regulatory body, demanding a retraction of Castrol's claims. Yet Castrol's claims are still up in the public eye, which means Mobil knows they are correct. All they are saying is that their Castrol product shears less (ie less viscosity breakdown) than the equivalent M1 product, and going by the UOA section here, I agree with them. My only problem with Castrol is the wording "the ultimate test of strength", I would prefer to say "one of many important oil parameters" . But I prefer cautious wording, which is why nobody would pay me to write their ad campaign.

 

[pacc]

Originally Posted By: SR5

Originally Posted By: Garak

Castrol states what test they are using in their comparison. You can go to the ASTM International site and purchase the methodology. You can ... conduct the tests and verify or disprove Castrol's claims. And, you can be rest assured that Mobil ... has conducted the same testing.

Exactly !!! You can safely bet good money that Mobil has reproduced these test to verify Castrol's claims. If the results and claims were found to be false, a large group of Mobil lawyers would be unleashed on Castrol and any regulatory body, demanding a retraction of Castrol's claims. Yet Castrol's claims are still up in the public eye, which means Mobil knows they are correct. All they are saying is that their Castrol product shears less (ie less viscosity breakdown) than the equivalent M1 product, and going by the UOA section here, I agree with them. My only problem with Castrol is the wording "the ultimate test of strength", I would prefer to say "one of many important oil parameters" . But I prefer cautious wording, which is why nobody would pay me to write their ad campaign.

It's better than the guy whacking people in the knees with a golf club.

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: SR5

My only problem with Castrol is the wording "the ultimate test of strength", I would prefer to say "one of many important oil parameters" . But I prefer cautious wording, which is why nobody would pay me to write their ad campaign.

Yes, that is where the salesmanship really kicks in. However, the claim based upon the testing is out in the open to be corroborated or disproved by anyone with the wherewithal and inclination to do so.